Clarion Housing Association Limited (202444733)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202444733

Clarion Housing Association Limited

15 August 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about works completed in her property in April 2019.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a leaseholder of the property since 27 December 2006. The landlord is the freeholder. The property is a maisonette. The resident lives with her son.
  2. In 2018, following a Section 20 process, the resident paid the landlord £2, 105.40 for improvements work on the building for water ingress in the property, which it had completed in 2016.
  3. Due to reports of damp and mould, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend the resident’s property in February 2024. That surveyor said that the property required no work but said the landlord needed to find more information about the works the resident said it had completed in April 2019.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 6 August 2024. The key points were as follows:
    1. In 2019 the landlord asked her to pay £2,500 for internal works at her property. The resident paid the money, but the mould was still present.
    2. The landlord had redecorated the property, at the time of doing the works, but in a different colour to the rest of the wall. There was an issue with damp from the roof which the landlord had previously repaired.
    3. She requested a surveyor to check under the roof, for the landlord to remove the panels, replaster the walls, repaint the bedroom and refund the monies paid.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 20 September 2024. The key points were as follows:
    1. It confirmed it had attended in September 2023 to complete a mould wash and survey of the external walls.
    2. With regards to the internal panels installed in 2019, it said the issue was outside of its complaints policy due to the length of time that had passed. It also confirmed it had no evidence that it had completed the works in 2019 and therefore it was unable to investigate further.
    3. It confirmed it had completed all external works required following the surveyors visit in February 2024 and said internal works were the resident’s responsibility.
    4. It offered £50 compensation for the delayed complaint response.
  6. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 30 September 2024 saying she had proof she had paid £2,000 in April 2019.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 18 December 2024. The key points were as follows:
    1. It confirmed the resident had paid £2,105.40 under S20 in 2018 for works completed in 2016 to address water ingress in the property.
    2. It attended in December 2024 to assess the situation and found that while there was evidence of damp and mould, it found no link to the worked charged under S20.
    3. It recommended that it move forward with a separate damp and mould case and had asked the relevant team to attend and carry out the works.
    4. It did not uphold the complaint and offered £75 for the delayed stage 2 response.
  8. We understand that in March 2025, the landlord installed insulation into the roof to help alleviate the damp in the property. In referring the complaint to us, the resident requested a reimbursement of the monies paid in 2019 for the insulation panels.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the works completed in her property in April 2019.

  1. In February 2024, following the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property and concerns from her builder that this was due to issues in the cavity wall the landlord’s surveyor attended the property. Given the concerns raised by the resident’s builder, it was appropriate of the landlord to attend to inspect the property and satisfy itself if the property needed further works.
  2. The landlord’s surveyor found that the property required no works. Given its finding, it was appropriate for it to not raise any follow-up works.
  3. However, given the resident’s assertion that her builder thought the issue was with the cavity wall, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have set out its position on that to the resident. The landlord has not provided any evidence show that it did communicate that to the resident to manage her expectations. It would have been useful for the landlord to have provided information to the resident on what it might have needed for her to challenge its findings, as a leaseholder, if she wished to do so.
  4. Following the visit, the surveyor noted the need to gain more information on the works the resident said it had completed in April 2019, specifically the type of insulation boards used. Given the resident had raised issues with the damp and mould and linked it to the earlier works completed, the landlord’s decision to check the nature of works completed was appropriate.
  5. The resident raised a formal complaint on 6 August 2024 about the work she had paid the landlord to complete in April 2019. She said the works had not resolved the mould, and it had painted the area a different colour at the time. When the landlord responded at stage 1, it explained that as it had completed the works over 4 years earlier, it would be unable to investigate the issue as it was outside of the period in its complaint policy. The landlord’s complaints policy said that it would not deal with complaints where the resident found the issue raised over 12 months ago. As the issue related to works completed 4 years earlier, the landlord’s decision to not investigate was reasonable.
  6. Its response was also in line our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which highlights the same, that an acceptable exclusion to accepting a complaint is where the issue occurred over 12 months ago. The evidence shows that the resident would have reasonably been aware of the issues complained about more than 12 months earlier then she had complained. Therefore, we consider that the landlord’s response in this instance was reasonable.
  7. In its response it also clarified that it could find no evidence of it installing panels inside the property and appropriately asked the resident to provide evidence of this so that it could consider if further investigation was necessary.
  8. Nevertheless, following that response, the landlord did take further action to investigate the resident’s concerns. It continued to investigate the monies the resident said she had paid and asked her to provide any evidence she had in relation to those works. While the landlord was under no obligation to investigate the complaint into the specific works completed, its decision to undertake further investigations into the issue was reasonable and in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles.
  9. Prior to providing its stage 2 response, the landlord continued to liaise with its planned investment team to understand what works the resident was referring to. It also spoke to the resident on 26 November 2024 to find out if she did have any evidence of the works undertaken as it had not received any further information from her at that stage. While it was appropriate of the landlord to liaise with its planned investment team and the resident, it was unclear why it had taken such a long length of time for it to find the works the resident had raised concerns about or for it to understand that the works related to the S20 process it had charged for in 2018.
  10. In its stage 2 response, on 18 December 2024, the landlord helpfully clarified that the resident had paid £2,105.40 in 2018 for section 20 works it had undertaken in 2016.
  11. Furthermore, it confirmed that it had attended the resident’s property on 11 December 2024 to assess those works to understand if there was a link between those works and the resident’s current issues. Given the resident’s persistent concerns that the works had failed, it was appropriate of the landlord to undertake its own investigations to satisfy itself that the issues were separate.
  12. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence in relation to the visit on 11 December 2024, which may indicate a record keeping issue.
  13. The landlord also confirmed that, as the earlier works had not failed, it would take no further action in relation to the S20 works, but it had opened a separate damp and mould case, and its team would attend to carry out the necessary works as soon as possible. Given the resident’s concerns and as it had found damp and mould in the property, this action was appropriate.
  14. Overall, the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the works completed in 2019 in a reasonable manner in the first instance. It attended to inspect the damp and mould reported and then explained, in its complaint response, why it was unable to investigate the actual work undertaken, but nevertheless, did conduct investigations.
  15. However, it delayed unnecessarily in providing the resident with clarification about the works and left the resident waiting 11 months for it to conclude the works she had complained about were linked to the S20 works. This caused a delay in it agreeing to undertake an investigation to satisfy itself that the ongoing issues were unrelated to the earlier S20 works. Which caused a delay in it raising the further damp and mould investigations in the property.
  16. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about works done in her property in April 2019.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The resident raised a formal complaint on 6 August 2024, which the landlord acknowledged, in line with its complaints policy, on 13 August 2024.
  2. The complaints team then wrote to the resident on 28 August 2024 to acknowledge the complaint again and said it would be requesting further information from the relevant business areas to respond to the complaint. Given that, in line with its policy, the landlord needed to have provided its stage 1 response by that date, it was not appropriate that it had not yet started its investigation.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 20 September 2024; 18 days after the response was due. The landlord has provided no evidence to show that it communicated the delay to the resident. This was not in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out that a landlord must communicate any delay to the resident and explain when the response would be due.
  4. However, the landlord did acknowledge the delayed response and in apologising it offered £50 to reflect the failing, which we consider reasonable in the circumstances.
  5. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 30 September 2024, which it acknowledged on 10 October 2024. This is 3 days outside of the landlord’s published timescales in its complaints policy. While a landlord must strive to adhere to the timescales in its policy and the Code, the delay here was not detrimental.
  6. The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 November 2024 to say it would be unable to respond within the 20 working days, as per its policy, but that it would respond by 5 December 2024. While it was appropriate for the landlord to write to the resident to explain the delay, at this point it was already 20 working days after the response was due. This is not in line with the Code, which sets out that a landlord must communicate the delay with the resident prior to the response due date. Furthermore, the resident must agree to any delay beyond 20 working days; The landlord has not evidenced that it made such an agreement.
  7. It provided its stage 2 response on 18 December 2024, 29 days after the response was due and 9 days after it had said in its earlier correspondence it would respond by. This is not appropriate and delayed the resident receiving a response to her complaint.
  8. However, the landlord did recognise and apologise for the failings in its complaint handling and offered the resident compensation of £75 to reflect that.
  9. While the landlord’s complaint handling fell below the standard expected by the Ombudsman, it has recognised the failings and the impact on the resident, which together with its compensation offer of £125 amounts to a finding of reasonable redress in this instance.

Determination

  1. Under paragraph 52 there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the works completed in her property in April 2019.
  2. Under paragraph 53.b the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £50 for its failings identified in its response to the resident’s concerns about the works completed in 2019.
  2. The resident has informed us that the damp and mould issue is still ongoing in the property, therefore within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should survey the property and, if it identifies any work, it must provide a timebound action to the plan of the actions it intends to take to resolve the issue for the resident. It must provide the action plan to us and the resident.

Recommendations

  1. As a finding of reasonable redress has been made based on the landlord’s offer of compensation in its complaint handling, the landlord should pay the compensation of £125 if it has not already done so.